Fordham v. Siderius
144 So. 3d 319
| Ala. | 2013Background
- Siderius and Fordham were in a 2006 common-law marriage with two minor children, L.F. and M.F., residing in Mobile, Alabama, and Washington during various periods.
- In 2011 Fordham filed a custody petition in Mobile; Siderius filed a Spokane custody petition and the Spokane court ordered relocation and an ex parte restraining order.
- Alabama and Washington both adopted the UCCJEA; the key issue was which state had home-state jurisdiction to issue an initial custody determination.
- The Mobile court held hearings on jurisdiction; eventually it found personal jurisdiction based on Siderius’s contacts with Alabama but did not resolve UCCJEA home-state questions.
- Spokane later awarded custody to Siderius under Washington law, and Siderius sought mandamus to dismiss Alabama’s custody proceeding.
- The Alabama Supreme Court concluded Washington was the home state under the UCCJEA’s six-month extended provision, requiring dismissal of Alabama’s proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington was the home state under the UCCJEA. | Siderius contends Washington is the home state under the extended six-month provision. | Fordham asserts Alabama home-state or other jurisdiction may apply because conduct occurred there. | Washington was the home state under the extended provision; Alabama lacked home-state jurisdiction. |
| Whether the six-month extended home-state provision applies to this case. | The six-month extension should keep Washington as home state despite temporary Alabama absences. | Alabama should be treated as home state if the six-month period is considered only the immediate six months before filing. | The extended six-month provision applies, extending Washington’s home-state status. |
| Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to dismiss the Alabama proceeding. | Siderius has a clear legal right to dismissal under the UCCJEA and mandamus is appropriate. | There is no clear right or adequate remedy until a full appellate review. | Mandamus is appropriate to compel dismissal where Washington has home-state jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Punturo, 928 So.2d 1030 (Ala. 2002) (mandamus standard and jurisdictional review)
- Ex parte Bruner, 749 So.2d 437 (Ala. 1999) (mandamus applying jurisdictional rules)
- Ex parte McNaughton, 728 So.2d 592 (Ala. 1998) (exemplary for jurisdiction and mandamus principles)
- Ex parte Flint Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 805 (Ala. 2000) (subject-matter jurisdiction review via mandamus)
- Ex parte Exxon Mobil Corp., 926 So.2d 303 (Ala. 2005) (UCCJEA interpretation and home-state priority)
- R.L. v. J.E.R., 69 So.3d 898 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (temporary absences counted in home-state analysis)
- In re Marriage of McDermott, 175 WashApp. 467, 307 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (temporary absences and home-state duration)
- Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 202 Ariz. 201, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (home-state analysis across states)
- Stephens v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 331 Mont. 40, 128 P.3d 1026 (Mont. 2006) (six-month home-state framework)
- Rosen v. Celebrezze, 117 Ohio St.3d 241, 883 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio 2008) (state-based home-state considerations)
- Meyeres v. Meyeres, 196 P.3d 604 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (home-state timing under extended provision)
- In re K.R., 229 W.Va. 733, 735 S.E.2d 882 (W.Va. 2012) (six-month comparison in home-state determination)